Jurisdictional Contrast: Rule 2.1 and the Approaches in Alberta, Quebec, and British Columbia

In Ontario, once the Rule 2.1 process is initiated, the court uses a rule designed for frivolous, vexatious, or abusive litigation to address a jurisdictional defect. The court may treat the defect as an abuse of process, as Chowdhury v. Unity Health Toronto, 2025 ONCA 90, held that a “clear lack of jurisdiction is sufficient to render the motion for leave to appeal an abuse of process.”

This approach is a direct departure from established procedural boundaries. Collins v. Ontario, 2017 ONCA 317, relying on Simpson v. The Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario, 2016 ONCA 806, held that Rule 2.1 does not replace a motion to quash an appeal for want of jurisdiction or for lack of merit.

Because Rule 2.1 cannot formally substitute for a motion to quash, the current application of the rule requires the court to bring a purely jurisdictional defect—such as filing in the wrong appellate forum, the absence of a statutory right of appeal, or a premature filing—within the existing categories of frivolous, vexatious, or abusive proceedings if the summary process is to be used.

By treating a lack of jurisdiction as sufficient to engage Rule 2.1, the court applies the summary process without the ordinary motion to quash that Simpson and Collins described for clear jurisdictional defects. Because an appellate court is a creature of statute, its authority to act is limited to the jurisdiction conferred on it. Once the court determines that it lacks jurisdiction over the matter, a question arises about the remaining basis for a substantive finding under Rule 2.1.

Ontario’s Rule 2.1.01 authorizes summary dismissal only where a proceeding appears frivolous, vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. It contains no separate ground for lack of jurisdiction. By contrast, the summary mechanisms in Alberta, Quebec, and British Columbia treat a jurisdictional defect as distinct from an abuse of process.

In Quebec, the Code of Civil Procedure maintains separate provisions. A declinatory exception addresses a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The ordinary remedy is a referral to the competent court, not dismissal as an abuse. The provision governing abuses of procedure is reserved for vexatious or bad-faith litigation. A court applying those rules cannot treat a pure jurisdictional defect as an abuse of procedure in order to dismiss the matter.

In Alberta, Rule 3.68 lists independent grounds on which a pleading may be struck. One ground is that the pleading is frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process. A separate ground is that the court has no jurisdiction. A judge who concludes that an appeal or action does not engage the court’s jurisdiction may strike it on that basis alone. The rule does not require the court to characterize the jurisdictional defect as an abuse of process.

Ontario’s Rule 2.1 does not contain an equivalent independent ground. To use the summary process for a lack of jurisdiction, the court must treat the jurisdictional defect as falling within the existing categories of frivolous, vexatious, or abusive proceedings. This differs from the approach in Simpson and Collins, which treated a clear absence of jurisdiction as a matter for a motion to quash rather than a summary process. The difference in the rules establishes that Rule 2.1, as written, is narrower than Alberta’s Rule 3.68 and differently structured from Quebec’s provisions, and that its use for a pure jurisdictional defect requires a characterization those earlier decisions did not describe.

British Columbia’s Rule 9-5, like Ontario’s Rule 2.1, does not list lack of jurisdiction as an independent ground for striking a pleading. Jurisdiction is addressed under a separate rule entirely. The court is not required to characterize a pure jurisdictional defect as an abuse of process in order to deal with it. Ontario’s Rule 2.1 is more limited: it authorizes summary dismissal only for proceedings that appear frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, and therefore requires that characterization if the summary process is to be used to clear a jurisdictional defect.

To map this directly to the statutes, the following table outlines the exact rules and sections for each province governing jurisdictional disputes versus abuse of process:

Province	Jurisdiction Rule	Abuse of Process / Striking Rule
Alberta	Rule 3.68(2)(a) (Alberta Rules of Court) specifies a pleading may be struck if "the Court has no jurisdiction".	Rule 3.68(2)(d) provides a distinct, separate ground if a pleading is "frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process".
Quebec	Article 163 (Code of Civil Procedure) establishes the "declinatory exception" for a lack of jurisdiction, resulting in a transfer to the proper court.	Article 51 (Code of Civil Procedure) governs the dismissal of proceedings for "abuse of procedure".
British Columbia	Rule 21-8 (Supreme Court Civil Rules) provides the specific mechanism for disputing the court's jurisdiction.	Rule 9-5(1) provides the mechanism to strike a pleading if it is "frivolous or vexatious" or "an abuse of process".
Ontario	No equivalent summary rule. Addressed via formal motion to quash or transfer under s. 110 of the Courts of Justice Act.	Rule 2.1.01 (Rules of Civil Procedure) authorizes dismissal only if the proceeding is "frivolous, vexatious or is otherwise an abuse of process".

Access the consolidated public records, dockets, and procedural analyses associated with this matter below.

Supreme Court of Canada (SCC)

• Formatted SCC Docket 42381
• Bulletin of Proceedings (Official)
• Official SCC Docket 42381

1. Case Overviews & Timelines

• Case Overview: Supreme Court of Canada Docket 42381, 2026 ONCA 246 and 2.1B (2025 ONCA 90)
• History of the Jurisdictional Defect in Chowdhury (2025 ONCA 90): Rule 2.1 Applied Twice
• Wrong-Forum and “Abuse of Process”: Amstar (2025 ONCA 493) and Bernard Property (2019 ONCA 830)
• “Or” vs. “Or Otherwise”: Scaduto (2015 ONCA 733), Raji (2015 ONSC 801), and the Language of Rule 2.1.01

2. Constitutional Limits & Delegated Authority

• Jurisprudence of the Administrative Reverse Onus: Rule 2.1 vs. Established Precedent
• Rule 2.1, Section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, and the Administrative Reverse Onus
• Rule 2.1 and the Automatic Stay: A Procedural Tension with Rule 2.01
• O. Reg. 322/24: Form 2.1A and the 2024 Amendments to Rule 2.1
• The Reverse Onus of Rule 2.1: The Practical Effect of the Automatic Stay in O. Reg. 322/24
• Form 2.1B and the Reverse Onus: Colourability and the Limits of Delegated Authority

4. Jurisdiction, Forum & Procedural Mechanics

• Rule 2.1.01 and Jurisdiction: Simpson (2016 ONCA 806), Collins (2017 ONCA 317) vs. Chowdhury
• Jurisdiction and the Initiation of Rule 2.1 Dismissals
• Rule 21.01 vs. Rule 2.1.01: "A Judge" vs. "The Court"
• Case Conference and Management: Scheduling as Adjudication (2.1B)
• Amstar (2025 ONCA 493) and Ingarra (2026 ONCA 139): When Jurisdiction Becomes "Frivolous"

5. Family Rule 1.4 & Rule 2.1

• Rule 1.4, Rule 2.1 and the Rules of Procedure: Can Ontario's Rules Committees Override the Common Law?
• O. Reg. 310/26 and Family Rule 1.4: The Shifting Framework of Summary Dismissals

Statutory References

• Appendix: Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure — Statutory Reference via Ontario e-Laws